Self taught NFP

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Hoosier-Daddy:

Yes it is.

Natural family planning is not contraception.

Contraception and NFP (periodic or complete continence) are both forms of birth control. One immoral the other moral. The Church doesn’t teach spacing and planning children (birth control) is immoral. The Church teaches contraception is an immoral means of birth control.

It is unfortunate that “birth control” and “contraception” have become synonyms when they are not— one is a subset of the other.

NFP can indeed be contraception as defined by the English dictionary, medical insurance companies, and etymology of the word contra- ception. NFP when used for achieving pregnancy is not contraception. However when used to avoid it is licit contraception.

 

[1ke]

Technically any info used to “plan” is a method. Just temping may not be a reliable way to go but tem

None of the major methods use temp only, for obvious reasons: it can only tell you when you ovulated (past tense) after the shift plus count of days post shift.

I don’t know of any reputable method that promotes temp only.

You can call it a “method” if you want, but none of the current scientifically based NFP methods use or promote temp only.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Regardless of wording we are off topic. The OP is asking for cheap NFP resources not even to be used for contracepting.

 

[1ke]

NFP can indeed be contraception as defined by the English dictionary, medical insurance companies, and etymology of the word contra- ception. NFP when used for achieving pregnancy is not contraception. However when used to avoid it is licit contraception.

Please stop trying to confuse people and being obtuse. The medical dictionaries also started defining conception as implantation in the last 30 years, but we know it occurs at fertilization.

The Church clearly defines what church contraception is and is not. There is no such thing as “licit contraception”.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

While none of the major methods advocate only using one tool NFP is indeed practiced by many using one tool. The “calendar method” while perhaps antiquated and overshadowed by modern NFP is indeed NFP.

 

[1ke]

Regardless of wording we are off topic. The OP is asking for cheap NFP resources not even to be used for contracepting.

I wouldn’t recommend “temp only”’ to anyone, especially someone who asked about charting for health. The mucus is an important part of that.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I’m sorry. I was unaware the Church has a separate English definition of contraception. I’m not being obtuse. NFP is often used contra (against) ception. I don’t mean to confuse and honestly it is better to discuss it here in a Catholic setting than the confusion one might encounter seeking aid financially in NFP instruction or tools. Better to discuss it here than have people wonder about it when making a call to thier insurers.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I wouldn’t recommend it either. But saying it isn’t a method is confusing and not accurate.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/UCM616511.htm

The FDA and the US government classifies a form of NFP as contraception. And again, I’m not sure, but I think the Obama rules are still in effect and Contraception is covered under insurers.

There is an irony here. And perhaps a legal battle… Would Catholic organizations who are exempt from providing contraception to insurees now be able to not accept that requirement? This is directly on topic as the OP could indeed use Natural Cycles for free which is a kind of contraception but not to be used for contraception.
Would be interested if anyone could speak to this. Also The Pill is used for other issues such as period regulation and acne. Is that covered under contraception at 100 percent?

 

[Clementine14]

The fact is in many situation breastfeeding with optimal and following all the critera works for many women. Otherwise it will not be approoved by WHO for the 6 firsts mounths.

It had worked for me, and many many women I have “met” through LLL have had a very delated period return.

But we will never advocated for breatfeeding as the way it is practiced in western world as effective (pacifer, mother at work, separation mother-baby the night etc).

You probably haven’t met the very many of us for whom it did not work, then. I did not return to work, and we did not use pacifiers. Cycles returned at three months. Supply tanked. It was very stressful and we were all miserable, until I started supplementing. I’d never use breastfeeding as a reliable way to space births. Sure, it works for some people- but for a lot of women it actually does not.

To the OP, Taking Charge of Your Fertility is a great resource. It’s how I learned, before I was married.

 

[heidi_storage]

Were you by chance Kelfa in a previous username? If so, I’m glad to see you and hope you’re well. If not, sorry for the mistake.

 

[Anicette]

@Clementine14,

What I said stay correct.

LAM worked until all the criteria are found. When one is excluded, as in your case a period come back the method cannot be continued. And another solution have to be founded.

the 98% sucess rate is in preventing pregnancies, NOT the level of guarantee of 6 mounths ammenorhea.

 

[Anicette]

No.

BBT alone IS an NFP method. It is based on day-to-day observation, so it is. It is not rythm or statistics.

It was even used a lot in the 60’s.
It is used today by common gynecologists to a first step for infertility investigations.

The fact that it indicated only the luteal infertility does not matter on the equation.
The fact that it is almost never encouraged by NFP advocates as a single criteria for the reason above is not relevant.

 

[Anicette]

I agree with you, unfortunately, on EBF.

The Kippleys have found through their own questionaries on mothers in the 60’s and medical litterature, an ambrella of factors that leads to more time of amnehorea and more often than the simples LAM criterias.

But it is not statistically proven at a level of effectiveness such as LAM.

I have hope for more infertiity time myself. Even If i was not surprised when it return, because I felt the hormonal return.

As for @Clementine14 too,
There are some factors which tend to influence lactational amnenorhea. We known of course, the quantity and quality of nutrition. And the very importance of night feeding.
But there is also hormonal levels that are been tested during the pregnancy. And mass body index.

Some studies here:

Plasma prolactin/oestradiol ratio at 38 weeks gestation predicts the duration of lactational amenorrhoea

Abstract. BACKGROUND: Fully breastfeeding women experience an amenorrhoea of variable duration. Our aim was to identify in pregnancy, endocrine markers tha

academic.oup.com

Factors related to duration of postpartum amenorrhoea among USA women with prolonged lactation - PubMed

<p>Duration of postpartum amenorrhoea (PPA) was compared among women who breast-fed for > or = 6 months (breast-feeding group) or < or = 3 months (formula-feeding group) and was found to be significantly shorter among the latter. Associations between maternal factors and duration of PPA were...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Clementine14]

What I said stay correct.

LAM worked until all the criteria are found. When one is excluded, as in your case a period come back the method cannot be continued. And another solution have to be founded.

the 98% sucess rate is in preventing pregnancies, NOT the level of guarantee of 6 mounths ammenorhea

Right. My point is that you mentioned that it worked for you and “many many” women. When I believe this is an overstatement. Some women do everything right, and their cycles still return earlier. And it’s not something you can predict beforehand unless you’re practicing another method- you don’t know your cycles are returning until they do.

 

[Clementine14]

As for @Clementine14 too,
There are some factors which tend to influence lactational amnenorhea. We known of course, the quantity and quality of nutrition. And the very importance of night feeding.
But there is also hormonal levels that are been tested during the pregnancy. And mass body index.

This is all very interesting, but I still don’t think it’s fair to promote LAM as “Well, it worked for me and a lot of people, so it can work for you too”. As you’ve pointed out, there are a lot of factors that can make it successful or not. Assuming most people don’t know their prolactin/estrogen ratio at 38 weeks, many of these factors are out of one’s control. So to insinuate that if it doesn’t work someone is just “doing something wrong” isn’t always fair.

 

[Anicette]

I don’t know the percentage of women who are breastfeeding and are still in amenhorea at 6 mouths. John Kippley give on his website 50% of american women (wathever the conditions of breatfeeding).

I find this percentage high- just my experience-. As I have already said, I know a lot of women who have had amenorhea period much more longer than me, while breatfeeding (and often worked without their baby too). Of course, as breastfeeding mothers are rares, past the first mouth in France, It is still annedoctical.

And I disagree, We can promote LAM. Not because It worked for me, or some others, but because It have been study in the world, and the Consensus of Bellagio have been adpoted by WHO.

Yes, it worked, with high effectiveness to prevent pregnancies. 98% as long as the criterias are respect. The same, or higher, than barrier methods. Same as NFP. It is known that it is a transitionnal method, and when it is proposed by health institutions or providers, it is with another contraceptive plan for when the mother will go out of one criteria.

It is the only natural method who is promoted as acceptable for post partum period by many health institutions or States (such as mine). NFP is very often considered as inappropriate and uneffective for this time.

So yes, we can promote it too. To do the contrary, because “it had not worked for me, or for x”, is the same empirical argument which you reproches me. It can be a relief for some couples that this alternative of NFP exist. And if the period return, it had been at least try.

Of course, there is a little chance of pregnancies (2%)- which mean before the first period. But the same can be said with NFP at a level similar, and even with contraceptives it not exclude.
It is hard, and certainely difficult to have 2 pregnancies in a short time, but if we are convinced against contraception, and still agree to have intercourses, we must accept that.

And there is much more chances that period will come back before than a pregnancy.

And for women who have been already accustomed with self-observation, there will chances that when the period come back, it is not a complete surprised, because the hormones will have worked previously. I don’t speak here, of the praticular situation of a early come back of fertility which is much more complicated.

To resume my opinion is if we cannot proposed LAM, because of non-efficiency, we cannot proposed NFP in normal context too.